Giurisdizione religiosa: la questione islamica in Canada e Stati Uniti
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contemporarylegal systems, specially in recent decades, have had to face challenges and issues posed by an upcoming, to a certain extent totally new, pluralism: ethnic, cultural, and religious. One of the most important challenges is represented by the identification of legal solutions aiming at overcoming the conflicts arising from such complexity, in order to ensure the protection of individual and group rights as well as the fulfilment of expectations of minorities in matters of respect of their multiple identities. The question arises Western legal system namely with reference to the Shari’a and its diffusion as a juridical framework, addressing the members of Muslim communities, parallel to Western laicist orders, in view of finding solutions to juridical controversies according to the dictates of Islamic law. The essay examines two very significant experiences: the religious arbitration in Canada and United States, that show a possible way of integration of Muslim minority in the West.Keywords: Shari’a Courts; Foundamental rights; Legal pluralism; Religious jurisdiction; Canada; United States.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it